Use e2e for all communication you can

Finally :D thank you so much!

So basically VOIP is “cheating” because its not actually handled by the network directly, the phone company pays for always-online servers, and phone(s) reach out to those server every time they change networks, in order for servers to be able to route calls to them.

Which also means! it is possible to do the same thing for computers, but it requires having

1. A static IP
2. An always online server
3. The device needs a daemon that tries to connect to an always online server, and authenticates itself
4. That server needs to manually reroute traffic (through a VPN or some other means) from the static IP address to the device, wherever it might be

Which also explains why general network providers wouldn’t want to create the infrastructure. Even if universal addresses were given to each device, which simplifies DHCP and address-leasing, and shortens time it takes to handshake with the network, all of that is less of a cost than the infrastructure needed track of devices as they change networks. (And that’s on top of ISP’s being slow to change from the legacy approach of local networks and desktops).

^ which is more the conversation I wanted to have but didnt really get with this post.

Thats a sizable edit!

Yeah 😅 I didnt want it to be this complicated of a question, but I didnt see how else to explain that current addressing systems don’t meet the same need as a phone number.

This I’m interested in, because its at the edge/limits of my knowledge when it comes to domains and cellular networking.

Are you saying if cell phones had a larger address space, let’s say 32 digits base 10, and every device was given a cell phone number, it would overwhelm the existing infrastructure?

Fair, I could have said fully qualified number, including country code.

And also fair, instead of saying a MAC could be edited, I should’ve said each phone number has one global owner, while each MAC address could have many owners.

Corrections have been made 👍

AFAIK a static IP does not fix that. If I’m wrong, which is possible, I’d be very happy to find that out.

AFAIK static public-facing IP addresses are limited to a physical location. It would work if my laptop never left my house but as soon as I take it to the airport its no longer accessible. People who try to connect to the static ip would just get a message saying the address timed out.

I can send a message to the IP address but AFAIK the message won’t get to him because he will almost certainly have a new address when he connects to the airport WiFi in the new city.

Cool, I’ll have to look that up!

I can get VOIP calls behind a NAT without cell service. I’m asking how is that possible. Is the router somehow part of the same AP as cell service?

I was wrong, I didnt realize ipv6 was 128bit. Still stuff like IPFS and git hashes are larger than 128bit to prevent collisions so there is a precedence for using larger address spaces when not having address reuse.

Yep, and I can verify my phone number didnt change when roaming, people could still call me.

The IP doesn’t persist across network hops (cell tower to cell tower) and the MAC address doesnt have one verified owner. A phone number is both verified having one owner and persists across network hops.

Even paying for a static IP its not like a phone number which is discoverable behind a NAT without extra router configuration.

Yes I’m sure. Try changing the number to 911. Phone numbers only have one owner, MAC addresses may have many owners.

Sure, I’ll change the title to say “phones have unique phone number (b/c sim cards), why don’t computers have an equivalent?” I didnt mean one phone == one phone number.

With VOIP I can get phone calls even without cell service, even behind a NAT. My question is why is the network designed in such a way where that is possible, but I can’t buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes (e.g. new wifi connection) such that I can initiate a connection to my laptop while it is behind a NAT.

no need for an endpoint to be directly exposed

If I were an engineer in the past, trying to send a message back to an endpoint (e.g. a server response) I would’ve reached for everything having a static IP, same as the EID system with phones, instead of the DHCP multi-tier NAT type system with temp addresses.

I’m all but certain they didnt do it for privacy reasons at the time.

Same people who decide phone numbers and domain names. We already have central registries, why does it being a computer make it harder to have a central authority?

Solid answer, thanks! You deserve all the upvotes that were, instead, for some reason, given to the guy that just said “I think its a MAC address”

I meant “in the same way that phone numbers are unique to phones (not perfectly unique, some phones have dual Sim, some have no sim, sometimes a Sim changes numbers after contacting the provider, etc)”

Its just typing all that^ in a title is kinda long.

EUI-64 IPv6 (and why its not a reality) though is kinda what I’m curious about. But not really because, even under that spec, its still not static like a phone number. I want to know why networks were not created in a way where I can send a message to a laptop regardless of what WiFi its connected to (assuming it is connected and online).

Every phone number has one owner, but MAC addresses can have many owners. They’re categorically different.

How would the internet know how to find your phone?

The same way phone calls try to find a phone when its powered off. Attempt, and then fail under a timeout.

Where would the registery be?

Same place as the phone number registry. Or the domain name registry.

That would be one giant database

Yep the domain name registry and cell phone registry very much are AFAIK